1. Geographical Indications: history and purposes
Geographical indications (from now on: “GIs”) occupy a peculiar position within intellectual property law. Unlike patents or trademarks, which are centered on individual innovation or distinctive signs controlled by a single undertaking, GIs protect collective reputational assets that are intrinsically linked to a specific territory. Their development reflects not merely a concern for market differentiation, but a broader legal attempt to reconcile quality, origin, tradition and economic development.
The earliest forms of protection for geographically linked products can be traced to national systems in France and Italy in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The French system of appellations d’origine, later codified in the 1935 law establishing the Comité National des Appellations d’Origine, is generally regarded as the prototype of modern GI protection¹. The purpose was to protect wine producers against fraudulent imitations while preserving the reputation associated with specific terroirs. The idea was not simply to prevent deception, but to recognize that certain products derived their qualities from a combination of natural and human factors tied to a specific geographical environment.
At international level, protection of indications of source first appeared in the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (1883)², which included “indications of source” and “appellations of origin” within the broader framework of industrial property. However, the Convention offered only limited protection, leaving enforcement largely to domestic unfair competition law.
A more structured design emerged with the Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of Appellations of Origin (1958)³, which introduced an international registration system. Nevertheless, its limited membership restricted its global impact.
The decisive turning point came with the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) on 1994, a milestone in the evolution of GI protection⁴. Articles 22-24 TRIPS established minimum standards of protection for geographical indications, defining them as indications identifying a good as originating in a territory, region or locality where a given quality, reputation or other characteristic is essentially attributable to its geographical origin⁵. TRIPS basically introduced a system on two levels: a general level of protection for all goods, and an enhanced protection for wines and spirits. But most importantly, TRIPS framed GIs explicitly within intellectual property law, consolidating their recognition as a distinct or hybrid category of intellectual property within the multilateral trading system.
Within the European Union, however, the development of GIs has followed a trajectory that cannot be understood solely through the lens of intellectual property harmonization. The EU system emerged primarily from agricultural policy concerns. Council Regulation (EEC) 2081/92 established the first EU framework for the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs⁶. The objective was not only consumer protection, but rural development and market organization within the Common Agricultural Policy (from now on: “CAP”). The CAP based origin of EU GIs profoundly influenced their conceptual architecture. In particular, the protection of designations of origin (from now on: “PDOs”) required a strong link between product characteristics and the geographical environment, encompassing both natural and human factors. Protected geographical indications (from now on: “PGIs”), by contrast, allowed a looser connection, based primarily on reputation or other characteristics attributable to origin. This dual model reflected a calibrated attempt to balance authenticity with economic flexibility.
  Subsequent reforms consolidated and expanded the system.
  Regulation (EU) 1151/2012⁷ modernized the framework, strengthening producer organizations and clarifying enforcement mechanisms.
  Over time, separate regimes developed for wines⁸ and spirit drinks⁹, further entrenching the sectoral approach to GI protection.
 The adoption of Regulation (EU) 2024/1143 represents the most recent consolidation and reform of the agrifood GIs system, integrating sustainability considerations and reinforcing producer empowerment within a single legislative instrument.
  Historically, therefore, EU GIs were not originally conceived primarily as classic intellectual property rights. Rather, they were regulatory instruments embedded in agricultural market policy.
  As Gangjee demonstrates, the European model emerged from regulatory and administrative structures in which the state plays a constitutive role in defining and supervising the protected product specification¹⁰. This distinguishes GIs from trademarks, which are fundamentally private rights granted upon registration.
  The purposes traditionally ascribed to GI protection can be grouped into three main categories: economic, consumer protection, and cultural. First, from an economic perspective, GIs are intended to generate added value for producers by allowing them to differentiate their products and obtain higher market prices. Moreover, the European Commission has consistently presented GIs as tools for rural development and competitiveness¹¹. By securing exclusive use of a geographical name for compliant producers, the system aims to prevent freeriding and ensures that the legitimate community of producers gain the reputation value. Secondly, GIs pursue consumer protection objectives. By certifying origin and compliance with a product specification, they reduce information asymmetries in the marketplace. The Court of Justice has underlined that GI protection seeks to guarantee to consumers that products bearing a protected name possess specific characteristics¹². Unlike mere indications of provenance, EU GIs are therefore tied to detailed production standards verified by control bodies. Thirdly, it can be said that GIs are increasingly justified in cultural terms. They are presented as instruments for safeguarding traditional knowledge and preserving intangible cultural heritage. This dimension has gained prominence in policy discourse, particularly in connection with sustainability and local identity. However, the cultural narrative sits somewhat uneasily with the CAP framework. As some scholars have noted, the romanticization of terroir may hide or obscure the commercial logic underpinning the regime¹³.
  A critical reading reveals the structural tension at the heart of GI protection: on one hand, GIs are framed as collective rights rooted in authenticity and tradition. On the other, they operate as powerful exclusionary mechanisms within competitive markets. By granting exclusive rights over descriptive geographical terms, the system inevitably restricts the use of such terms by outsiders. Just think about the obvious restricting effects of GIs converting geographical names (normally descriptive and free) into protected signs.
  The Court of Justice has repeatedly confirmed the strong protection afforded to GIs, even against evocative uses that do not mislead consumers¹⁴. This expansive interpretation strengthens the proprietary dimension of GIs and brings them closer to the trademark logic.
  The historical evolution of GIs reflects a gradual transformation. What began as a tool against fraud and unfair competition, evolved into a sophisticated regulatory instrument serving agricultural policy. Subsequently, through TRIPS and EU consolidation, GIs were reframed as intellectual property rights with transnational effects¹⁵.
  The question that now arises – particularly considering the extension of GI protection beyond food – is whether this transformation is complete, and whether GIs are in the process of becoming a generalized form of intellectual property detached from their agricultural origins.
  Understanding this historical trajectory is essential for assessing and comparing both Regulation (EU) 2024/1143 and Regulation (EU) 2023/2411. The expansion of GIs beyond agricultural products cannot be evaluated without recognizing that the traditional EU model was deeply rooted in CAP logic¹⁶.
  The move towards craft and industrial products therefore raises not merely technical questions, but fundamental issues concerning the conceptual identity of geographical indications within EU law.

2. Geographical Indications: effects on prices, producers and consumers
The economic justification of geographical indications has long been presented as one of their principal normative foundations. Beyond their cultural and regulatory dimensions, GIs are defended as instruments capable of generating measurable economic benefits for producers and delivering reliable information to consumers. However, empirical evidence reveals a more fragmented picture, suggesting that while GIs may produce significant aggregate value, their distributive effects and efficiency implications are not uniformly positive.
2.1 Effects on prices
One of the most frequently mentioned economic effects of geographical indications is their ability to allow producers to sell their products at higher prices than comparable non-GI products.
  According to a major study commissioned by the European Commission, products protected as PDOs or PGIs are sold, on average, at more than twice the price of similar products without GI protection. This price difference has become a key argument in policy discussions, supporting the view that GIs generate real added value for producers¹⁷. From an economic point of view, this higher price can be explained by the fact that GIs act as reliable quality labels, helping consumers identify products with specific quality characteristics and reducing uncertainty about their origin and production methods.
Geographical indications act therefore also as collective quality signals, helping consumers identify products with specific characteristics and reducing the information gap between producers and buyers. By certifying compliance with a product specification subject to official controls, they credibly communicate attributes that consumers cannot easily verify ex ante or by themselves. In this respect, GIs resemble certification marks, although their legal architecture differs significantly.
  However, the price gap is not uniformly distributed across sectors. For instance, wines and spirits account for a substantial proportion of total GI value within the Union¹⁸. In several Member States, a small number of famous denominations generate a disproportionate share of aggregate revenue. This concentration suggests that the economic success of GIs is strongly dependent on preexisting market recognition, rather than solely on the legal protection itself. Moreover, it remains debated whether the observed price gap derives from the intrinsic quality of the product or from the scarcity effects resulting from legally restricted use of the protected name. Some scholars argue that GI protection may give recognised producer groups a financial advantage by reserving the use of a geographical name to insiders, thereby limiting competition from producers outside the designated area¹⁹. If this interpretation is accepted, the price gap may partly reflect regulatory barriers, rather than pure quality differentiation.
2.2 Effects on producers
  For producers, GIs are frequently portrayed as tools of rural development and collective empowerment. Regulation (EU) 2024/1143 explicitly emphasizes producer organizations and sustainability objectives, reinforcing the collective governance dimension of the system²⁰.
  The economic value of GI sales in the EU has steadily increased over the last decade²¹ and the Commission’s data indicate that the total sales value of GI products in the EU amounts to tens of billions of euros annually, with a significant share exported outside the Union²². Export performance is also often presented as evidence of the global competitiveness of the EU GI model. Nevertheless, the distributional impact among producers deserves closer scrutiny. Entry into a GI scheme involves compliance costs for adherence to production specifications, certification expenses, and participation in collective governance structures. Smaller producers may benefit from collective branding, but they may also face constraints imposed by dominant actors within the producer group. The governance of GI consortia can therefore generate internal asymmetries.
  Furthermore, once a GI is established, innovation within the production method may be constrained by the rigidity of the product specification. While this rigidity is justified by the need to preserve authenticity, it may reduce adaptive capacity in dynamic markets. As Barham notes, the codification of traditions can paradoxically freeze practices that were historically born as flexible²³. This tension between preservation and innovation becomes particularly relevant when GIs expand beyond agriculture into sectors characterized by technological change.
  Another structural issue concerns geographical exclusion. Producers located outside the defined area, even if employing similar methods, are legally prevented from using the protected name. While this exclusion is intrinsic to the logic of GIs, it raises competition concerns. The Court of Justice has repeatedly confirmed the strong exclusionary scope of GI protection, including the protection against evocative uses that merely allude to the protected name²⁴. This expansive interpretation strengthens collective control but simultaneously intensifies market exclusion effects.
2.3 Effects on consumers
  From the consumer perspective, GIs are justified primarily as instruments of information and authenticity. By linking a product to a defined geographical area and production method, they aim to reduce deception and facilitate informed purchasing decisions. The Court of Justice has underlined that the objective of GI protection includes guaranteeing specific qualities and characteristics to consumers²⁵. Empirical studies suggest that consumer recognition of EU quality schemes varies significantly across Member States and product categories²⁶. In fact, the effectiveness of GIs as information tools depends not only on legal protection, but also on marketing, cultural familiarity and retail visibility.
  Another question concerns whether GIs improve consumer welfare. If the price gap reflects superior quality, consumers may benefit from reliable differentiation. However, if the gap is partly attributable to restricted competition, consumer overall benefits may be smaller than expected. The economic literature does not offer a definitive answer. Rather, it highlights the specific context nature of GI effects.
  Moreover, GIs can influence consumer perceptions beyond objective quality attributes. The narrative of authenticity and tradition associated with protected names often operates on a symbolic level. In this regard, GIs work not merely as informational devices, but more like identity markers. The value attached to origin may therefore be partly constructed through regulatory recognition itself.
2.4 Critical assessment
  The economic evidence supports the conclusion that GIs can generate substantial aggregate value within the EU market. However, this value is unevenly distributed and may be heavily concentrated on a limited number of denominations. The assumption that legal protection automatically produces economic success is therefore too simplistic.
  Furthermore, the dual character of GIs – as both quality signals and exclusionary rights – creates tension. Their effectiveness as market instruments relies on exclusivity, but exclusivity may restrict competition and innovation. This tension becomes even more pronounced when considering the extension of GI protection to craft and industrial products, where production methods may be less dependent on natural factors and more susceptible to technological evolution. In sectors where production is less dependent on natural geographical factors and more closely linked to technical know-how or industrial organization, the economic justification based on terroir becomes more fragile.
  In light of these considerations, the economic rationale of GIs cannot be reduced to price gaps alone. Their broader impact on market structure, producer governance and consumer perception must be taken into account.
  The next chapter turns to the current EU framework for wine, spirit drinks and agricultural products under Regulation (EU) 2024/1143, which consolidates the traditional model and reinforces its policy objectives. Understanding its architecture is essential before examining the conceptual breakthrough introduced by Regulation (EU) 2023/2411.

3. The current EU framework for wine, spirit drinks and agricultural products GIs (Regulation (EU) 2024/1143)
  Regulation (EU) 2024/1143²⁷ constitutes the current legal framework governing geographical indications for wine, spirit drinks and agricultural products. It is based on Article 43(2) TFEU and the first paragraph of Article 118 TFEU, reflecting the hybrid constitutional foundation. While formally anchored in the Union’s intellectual property competence, the Regulation remains structurally inserted in the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). This dual legal basis is significant: it illustrates the juridical evolution of GIs towards intellectual property language, without displacing their agricultural orientation.
  The recitals situate geographical indications within objectives such as rural development, sustainability and fair income for producers²⁸. GIs are therefore conceived not merely as exclusionary market rights, but as regulatory tools serving territorial and agricultural policy goals. The protected name is therefore understood as a collective right available to all compliant producers in the designated area.
3.1 The geographical link: PDOs and PGIs
  The conceptual core of the Regulation is contained in Article 46, which defines PDOs and PGIs. A PDO requires that the product’s quality or characteristics are essentially or exclusively due to a particular geographical environment, including natural and human factors, and that all production steps take place within the defined area. A PGI requires that a given quality, reputation or other characteristic is essentially attributable to its geographical origin and that at least one production step occurs in the area²⁹. This dual model reflects a graduated approach to territorial link. PDOs embody a strong terroir logic, linking product characteristics directly to environmental conditions. PGIs allow greater flexibility, particularly where reputation plays a decisive role. Nevertheless, even PGIs maintain a mandatory production link to the territory. The geographical connection therefore remains the normative foundation of protection, as confirmed by recital 60, which emphasizes the centrality of the geographical environment for PDOs.
  The Regulation seeks to preserve a conception of authenticity rooted in specific agricultural production conditions. Unlike trademarks, which protect distinctive signs independently of any territorial production requirements, EU agricultural geographical indications are intrinsically linked to regulated production systems.
3.2 Registration and institutional structure
  The registration procedure confirms the public law character of the system. Applications are first examined at national level before being transmitted to the Commission for Union scrutiny and publication. The state is not merely a registrar, but it’s a constitutive actor in assessing the product specification and the geographical link.
  EUIPO’s role is limited. Recital 16 clarifies that the Office maintains and updates the Union register of geographical indications as a mere processor.
  The institutional center of gravity, therefore, remains on Member States and the Commission. This limited involvement becomes particularly relevant when compared with Regulation (EU) 2023/2411, where EUIPO exercises examination powers for craft and industrial GIs.
3.3 Scope of protection and control
  Regulation 2024/1143 confirms the broad protection against misuse, imitation and evocation. Recital 35 substantially codifies the case law history of the Court of Justice on evocation, recognizing that protection is extended to situations where consumers establish a mental association with the protected name. The scope of protection, therefore, exceeds the mere prevention of confusion and safeguards the economic value of the geographical name.
At the same time, GIs remain subject to mandatory official controls. Recital 51 confirms that competent authorities designated by Member States should verify the product’s compliance with product specifications. This system of public supervision distinguishes agricultural GIs from ordinary intellectual property rights where control, if existent, is primarily private.
3.4 Critical assessment
  Regulation (EU) 2024/1143 consolidates the agricultural paradigm of geographical indication protection. Its essential features include a structured and mandatory geographical link, multilevel administrative validation, official public controls and exclusionary protection. Although now formally grounded partly in Article 118 TFEU, the regime remains inspired by the CAP logic and has a public law character.
  This consolidated model serves as reference point for assessing the extension of GIs beyond food. If Regulation (EU) 2023/2411 reproduces these structural elements, it may represent continuity. If it modifies the geographical link, institutional balance or control mechanisms, it may indicate a breakthrough from territorial links toward a more generalized intellectual property right. The following chapter explores the conceptual foundations of this expansion.

4. Expansion of GIs beyond food: conceptual and legal foundations
  The extension of geographical indication protection beyond agricultural products represents one of the most significant structural developments in the history of EU origin law. While the traditional GI regime evolved within the framework of the CAP and was deeply embedded in the logic of rural development and market organization, the move towards protecting craft and industrial products requires a distinct normative and justification. This expansion does not merely broaden the scope of protection, but it challenges the conceptual identity of geographical indications within EU law. For decades, the absence of protection for non-agricultural geographical names in EU created a fragmented landscape. In fact, several Member States have developed national sui generis systems or specific protections, while others relied exclusively on trademark law or unfair competition rules.
  The EUIPO Study on Member States’ potential for protecting craft and industrial geographical indications confirms this fragmentation, identifying sixteen Member States with some form of sui generis protection, although with significant variations in scope and enforcement³⁰. At the same time, other Member States entirely lacked dedicated systems. The result was legal asymmetry within the internal market, where certain geographically rooted craft products enjoyed protection domestically but remained vulnerable across borders. The empirical findings of the EUIPO Study demonstrate that the expansion to craft and industrial products is not purely a theoretical exercise. The study identifies 132 existing national registrations and pending applications for craft and industrial geographical indications, as well as 380 product names potentially eligible for EU protection³¹. These figures reveal a tangible economic and cultural substratum underlying the legislative initiative. However, the same study also exposes structural fragilities. While interest among private stakeholders appears high, only a limited number of producers have formalized product specifications capable of supporting registration³². The gap between reputational awareness and regulatory compliance suggests that the transition from pure tradition to legally codified specification is far from automatic. The fundamental basis for the expansion marks a decisive shift.
  Agricultural GIs were historically anchored in Article 43 TFEU and the objectives of the CAP. By contrast, Regulation (EU) 2023/2411 relies primarily on Article 118 TFEU, which empowers the Union to establish European intellectual property rights by providing uniform protection throughout the Union. This sort of relocation from agricultural policy to intellectual property harmonisation is conceptually significant, since it reframes geographical indications as general intellectual property instruments rather than regulatory tools confined to a specific sector. This shift inevitably raises questions about the nature of the geographical link.
  In the agricultural sector, the connection between product and territory is articulated through the interaction of natural and human factors. Soil, climate and local ecosystems provide structural elements that render production genuinely territorial. In craft and industrial sectors, by contrast, the geographical link is predominantly grounded in human skill, traditional knowledge and reputation. In fact, Regulation (EU) 2023/2411 requires that at least – and only – one production step occur within the designated area, but also that a quality, reputation or other characteristic is essentially attributable to geographical origin³⁴. The reduced emphasis on natural factors is clear, and it signals a transformation in the conceptual foundation of the regime. The EUIPO Study implicitly confirms this transformation. Many of the potentially protectable products identified – textiles, ceramics, glassware, metalwork – derive their distinctiveness primarily from accumulated craftsmanship and local expertise, rather than environmental determinism³⁵. The geographical environment remains relevant, but more as a social or cultural element, rather than a conceptual base. In brief, the center of gravity moves from terroir to know-how.
This evolution does not necessarily weaken the legitimacy of protection, but it alters its justificatory and conceptual structure.
  A further structural element reinforcing this difference is the mechanism introduced by Article 19 of Regulation (EU) 2023/2411. Member States lacking a national sui generis system and demonstrating low interest may request derogation from the obligation to designate a competent national authority. The EUIPO Study indicates that several Member States have considered invoking this possibility, citing administrative burden, limited number of potentially eligible products or expected low demand³⁶. Such flexibility has no parallel in the agricultural legal framework, and the existence of an “opt-out” mechanism suggests that the Union legislator recognises varying degrees of structural capacity across Member States. This differentiated commitment reveals a deeper conceptual tension.
  If geographical indications in the agricultural context were justified also by the systemic need to organize markets and stabilize rural income, the protection of craft and industrial products appears more closely aligned with the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage and the valorization of local identity. The EUIPO Study identifies cultural and traditional heritage as leading motivations among private stakeholders, with similar patterns observable in the responses of public authorities³⁷.
  However, cultural justification alone does not automatically translate into economic sustainability. The predominance of small enterprises within the craft sector, often with limited turnover and organizational capacity, underscores the potential challenges of compliance, control and collective governance. The extension of GI protection, therefore, operates at the intersection of three rationales: internal market harmonization, intellectual property expansion and cultural policy. While parity arguments support the idea that non-agricultural producers should not be disadvantaged compared to agricultural producers, conceptual symmetry should not obscure structural differences.
  In agricultural markets, natural immobility provides a powerful justification for territorial exclusivity. In industrial contexts, characterized by technological mobility and replicability, exclusivity rests more heavily on normative recognition of historical association and collective reputation. This transformation may be understood as part of a broader tendency within EU intellectual property law toward the protection of collective intangible assets. Extending protection to craft and industrial goods strengthens the external coherence of EU trade policy and reinforces the Union’s position in international discussions on origin protection. Nevertheless, the conceptual coherence of the regime depends on maintaining a credible and verifiable link between product and territory. The EUIPO Study illustrates both the promise and the difficulty of this endeavor. On one hand, the identification of hundreds of potentially protectable names suggests a significant number of geographically rooted craftsmanship. On the other, uneven levels of preparation and the possibility of “opt-outs” reveal that this expansion does not rest on a uniform structural necessity across the Union. Then, the move beyond food represents less an organic continuation of the agricultural paradigm and more a reconfiguration of geographical indications as a general intellectual property instrument. Whether this reconfiguration preserves the essential features of the traditional model – like public supervision, precise specification, demonstrable links – or instead inaugurates a gradual transformation toward collective reputation rights is a question that can be answered through examination of the new regulatory framework.
  The next chapter analyses Regulation (EU) 2023/2411 and compares its architecture with that of Regulation (EU) 2024/1143 in order to assess whether the expansion beyond food represents continuity, adaptation or a conceptual breakthrough.

5. The new EU framework for craft and industrial GIs (Reg. (EU) 2023/2411)
  Regulation (EU) 2023/2411 establishes, for the first time, a Union system for the protection of geographical indications for craft and industrial products³⁸. It extends the geographically linked protection beyond the agrifood sectors and fills a gap in EU law, where non-agricultural products had previously been protected only through fragmented national sui generis systems, trademark tools or unfair competition rules³⁹. The Regulation is therefore both a harmonizing instrument for the internal market and a structural extension of EU GI regulations into a field historically located outside the CAP framework⁴⁰. At the same time, the new regime does not simply copy the agrifood model. It preserves the core GI techniques of collective entitlement, product specification and registration, but adapts them to products whose territorial identity is more often linked to human know-how and reputation than to natural factors⁴¹. In this sense, Regulation 2023/2411 can be understood better as a form of structured adaptation, rather than a transposition of the agrifood GI paradigm⁴².
5.1 Scope, function and collective character
  The Regulation applies to craft and industrial products whose quality, reputation or other characteristic is essentially attributable to geographical origin, and which meet the conditions for registration⁴³. Like agrifood GIs, the protected name is not an individual monopoly, but instead it is a collective right, available to all producers in the defined area who comply with the registered specification. This preserves a fundamental element of EU GI law: exclusivity depends on compliance and territorial linkage, not on private ownership of a sign as such.
  The policy logic, however, is broader than in the traditional CAP centered GI framework. Besides market differentiation and consumer information, the new regime explicitly serves internal market harmonization and the valorization of local craft and industrial heritage. This shift confirms the argument developed in Chapter 4: the move beyond food reframes GIs more clearly as a general category of intellectual property linked to collective reputation and place.
5.2 Conditions for protection and the geographical link
  The conceptual core of Regulation 2023/2411 lies in the legal definition of the geographical link. The Regulation requires that a product possess a quality, reputation or other characteristic essentially attributable to its geographical origin, and that at least one production step take place in the defined area. This formula is clearly closer to the flexible logic of PGIs, than to the stricter PDO logic in agrifood law. The comparison with Regulation (EU) 2024/1143 is instructive.
  The agrifood regime preserves a dual PDO/PGI structure and, especially for PDOs, ties product qualities to a geographical environment including natural and human factors. By contrast, Regulation 2023/2411 adopts a single category GI model for craft and industrial products and accepts a more flexible territorial link. The issue therefore becomes the demonstrable contribution of a geographically rooted production tradition, know-how or reputation. This is a significant normative choice. It does not eliminate the territorial requirement, but it changes its center of gravity.
  In practical terms, the regime protects the collective reputation associated with a specific place, even in sectors where production techniques may be reproduced outside the area, but provided that the product’s identity remains credibly anchored in local tradition and in the approved specification⁴⁴.
5.3 Product specification, registration and institutional design
  As for the agrifood system, the product specification is the cornerstone of protection. The application must define the product, the geographical area and the elements establishing the link between the product and the area, thereby transforming a social and commercial reputation into a verifiable entitlement. The product specification base is one of the strongest elements of continuity with the agrifood framework under Regulation 2024/1143. The institutional architecture, however, marks a more visible change.
  In the agrifood regime, the Commission remains central to substantive scrutiny, while EUIPO’s role is limited (notably, as a processor for the register). In the craft and industrial GI regime, EUIPO is assigned a much more substantial operational role, consistent with the Regulation’s stronger placement within the EU intellectual property administration landscape. The Regulation also allows certain Member States to derogate from the standard national phase structure when there is no national sui generis system and local interest is low. This mechanism has no equivalent in the agrifood framework and reflects the acknowledgment that CI GI protection is not equally embedded across all Member States.
5.4 Scope of protection and coexistence with trademark law
  Regulation 2023/2411 provides protection against misuse of registered names in line with the established GI tradition, including direct or indirect misuse, imitation and evocation. This scope is essential if the new system wants to offer parity with agrifood GIs rather than just symbolic recognition. At the same time, coexistence with trademark law is likely to generate greater tension in the craft and industrial field than in the agrifood sectors.
  Historically, many origin linked products outside agriculture relied on collective marks, certification marks, or conventional branding strategies⁴⁵. The new sui generis GI system does not simply replace these tools, it overlays them with a territorial and collectively governed regime that may be more protective in some cases, but also more demanding in terms of coordination, specification drafting and compliance. This tension is central to the practical success of the Regulation. Producer communities will use the system only if they perceive the GI route as institutionally and economically workable, not merely doctrinally available.
5.5 Controls, compliance and comparative assessment
  The credibility of the new regime ultimately depends on controls and ongoing compliance. As in agrifood law, registration under Regulation 2023/2411 is not meant to function as a purely promotional label, it presupposes verification of conformity with the registered specification. Implementation may prove more difficult in the craft and industrial context, where production methods are often workshop based, hybrid, or more exposed to technical change than many traditional agrifood processes. Regulation 2023/2411 is therefore best understood as neither full continuity nor a conceptual break. It preserves the core elements of the GI system, namely registration, product specification and collective access. At the same time, it introduces adaptation through a single category model, a geographical link centred on know-how, and a stronger role for EUIPO.
  The Regulation clearly belongs to the EU GI tradition, but it reorients that tradition toward a broader intellectual property model grounded in collective reputation connected to place. Whether this evolution will remain faithful to the traditional emphasis on verifiable linkage, public supervision and effective control depends largely on how the system is implemented.
  The next chapter examines the challenges of applying GI protection to craft and industrial products, including proof of geographical link, governance capacity, innovation limits, competition concerns and the risk of excessive expansion.

6. The practical and theoretical problems of GIs in craft and industrial products
  The extension of geographical indication protection to craft and industrial products raises a series of practical and theoretical difficulties that are structurally different from those encountered in the agrifood context. While Regulation (EU) 2023/2411 preserves the architecture of GI law, its application to non-agricultural sectors raises tensions concerning proof of the geographical link, governance capacity, innovation constraints and competition effects.
  A first and central problem concerns the proof and stability of the geographical link. In agrifood GIs, especially PDOs, the connection between product and territory is often grounded in relatively stable environmental conditions like soil composition, climate patterns and local ecosystems. By contrast, in craft and industrial sectors, the link is predominantly reputational and based on human skills⁴⁶.
  The legal requirement that quality, reputation or other characteristics must be essentially attributable to geographical origin and that at least one production step occurs in the area is structurally more flexible than the agrifood PDO model⁴⁷. This flexibility is necessary, but it increases fragility. In fact, where production techniques are technically replicable outside the designated area, exclusivity rests largely on collective historical association and accumulated know-how. The more mobile the technology, and the more transferable the skills, the more questionable is the claim that the product’s identity is territorially “essential”. This creates a risk of gradual dilution of the conceptual basis of GIs, transforming them into instruments protecting geographically branded reputation rather than territorially embedded production systems.
  A second difficulty concerns specification drafting and governance capacity. The EUIPO Study indicates that, in some Member States, certain craft and industrial products are not currently organised around formalised product specifications, which may complicate future GI registrations⁴⁸. In sectors dominated by small or medium enterprises and workshop production, translating tacit knowledge into a precise and enforceable regulatory language may be complex and resource intensive. In fact, unlike large agrifood denominations with established consortia, many craft sectors lack strong collective structures. This generates a structural asymmetry: protection becomes accessible only where producers possess sufficient organizational capacity, legal support and administrative literacy. The result may be selective formalization, privileging better coordinated sectors over equally authentic but institutionally weaker ones. In such cases, the availability of the right does not automatically translate into effective access.
  A third issue relates to innovation and technological evolution. GIs require a defined specification that stabilizes the essential characteristics of the product. In agricultural contexts, this stabilization often corresponds to production traditions. In industrial and craft contexts, however, technological adaptation may be more frequent and more necessary for competitiveness. The risk is double. On one hand, rigid specifications may freeze productive techniques and discourage incremental innovation. On the other hand, excessively flexible specifications may weaken the distinctiveness that justifies protection. The balance between authenticity and adaptability is therefore more delicate in the craft and industrial world. In other words, if the specification becomes too narrow, it may constrain development, if it becomes too broad, it may undermine the credibility of the geographical link.
  A fourth and closely related tension concerns competition and market exclusion. Like agrifood GIs, craft and industrial GIs convert geographical names into protected collective signs. This aspect inevitably restricts use by producers outside the defined area, even where similar techniques or aesthetic styles are employed. In agrifood sectors, territorial immobility of natural factors provides a persuasive justification for exclusivity. In industrial contexts, the justification rests more heavily on historical association and reputational capital.
The legitimacy of exclusivity may therefore be frequently challenged, especially in international trade contexts where products inspired by regional traditions are manufactured elsewhere. This tension becomes particularly visible in disputes involving global fashion or design industries, where geographically evocative names may be used for stylistic reference rather than literal origin.
Extending GI protection to craft and industrial goods may therefore broaden exclusive rights based on origin into markets that have traditionally relied on branding and design to compete.
  Finally, there is a broader systemic risk of excessive expansion. The strength of the EU GI model lies in its credibility: a protected name signals a verifiable and territorially grounded production system subject to public control. If the registration in the craft and industrial field becomes too accommodating, the system may gradually move toward a generalized protection of collective geographical branding. Such a shift would not necessarily invalidate the regime, but it would alter its conceptual identity. The more GIs detach from demonstrable territorial links, the more they resemble collective trademarks reinforced by public authority. The danger is not formal incoherence, but normative dilution. A regime designed to protect geographically determined authenticity could evolve into a flexible tool for regional marketing strategies.
  These problems do not imply that Regulation (EU) 2023/2411 is misguided. Rather, they illustrate that the success of the new framework depends on careful calibration. The credibility of craft and industrial GIs will ultimately rest on maintaining a meaningful and verifiable link between product and place, ensuring workable governance structures, and preventing the regime from becoming a mere instrument of symbolic territorial branding.
  The extension of GI protection beyond food therefore represents both an opportunity and a test. It offers protection to historically rooted craft sectors previously exposed to competition vulnerability. At the same time, it challenges the Union to preserve the conceptual discipline that has historically distinguished EU geographical indications from ordinary commercial signs.
  The following chapters examine these tensions in concrete contexts, beginning with examples illustrating the practical need and the limits of origin protection in globalized markets.

7. Misappropriation of traditional craftsmanship and the limits of trademark law
Recent controversies concerning the use of traditional craft designs by major fashion companies illustrate the structural limits of conventional intellectual property regimes in protecting geographically linked craftsmanship.
  The episodes involving Prada and Adidas are particularly relevant, as they expose the mismatch between collective, territorially rooted know-how and the individualistic architecture of trademark and design law.
  In 2019, Prada presented a line of leather sandals that closely resembled traditional “Kolhapuri” sandals produced in the Indian region of Kolhapur. Kolhapuri chappals had already been registered as a geographical indication in India under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act 1999, covering handcrafted leather sandals produced according to traditional techniques in designated districts of Maharashtra and Karnataka⁴⁹. Although Prada did not initially market the footwear under the name “Kolhapuri”, the visual similarity triggered public criticism in India and diplomatic engagement by local trade bodies. Prada subsequently acknowledged the inspiration and expressed openness to dialogue with local producers⁵⁰.
  From the standpoint of EU intellectual property law as it stood at the time, the avenues for legal redress were limited. The geographical name “Kolhapuri” was not registered as a protected designation within the Union, and no corresponding EU geographical indication existed for craft products. Absent such registration, the collective interest of artisans could not be asserted through the GI framework applicable to agricultural products under Regulation (EU) 2024/1143. Nor was trademark law easily adaptable to the situation.
  Trademarks protect distinctive signs, not collectively developed traditional designs lacking a single right holder. Similarly, design protection under Regulation (EC) 6/2002 is premised on individual novelty and individual character, criteria that sit uneasily with long standing traditions⁵².
  A comparable dynamic emerged in 2022, when Adidas announced a sneaker inspired by traditional huarache designs associated with indigenous communities in Oaxaca, Mexico. The model, referred to in media reports as the “Oaxaca Slip On”, incorporated weaving techniques and stylistic elements rooted in local craftsmanship. Mexican authorities publicly criticised the initiative, arguing that it appropriated elements of indigenous cultural heritage without adequate authorisation or benefits share⁵³. The project was ultimately withdrawn⁵⁴.
  Here again, traditional designs are often hard to protect under EU copyright law because copyright requires a specific author and an original creative contribution. When a design has developed gradually over time through collective tradition, it may be difficult to identify a single creator or to show the kind of originality required by the Court⁵⁵.   The absence of an internationally recognised geographical indication covering the relevant craft further weakened the possibility of enforcement beyond the territory of origin.
These episodes highlight a structural asymmetry. Traditional crafts embody collective, intergenerational practices tied to a specific territory, yet the dominant intellectual property paradigms remain centred on exclusive rights vested in identifiable private actors.
  Where no recognised geographical name is used, and where the protected subject matter is not a distinctive sign or a novel design, communities are left to rely primarily on reputational pressure rather than enforceable legal claims.
  It is precisely this gap that Regulation (EU) 2023/2411 seeks to address by introducing a EU system for the protection of geographical indications for craft and industrial products. By extending GI protection beyond the agrifood sector, the Regulation acknowledges that certain non-agricultural goods derive value from a link between quality, reputation or characteristics and a specific geographical origin. If products such as Kolhapuri sandals or Oaxacan huaraches were protected under a comparable system recognised within the Union, unauthorised use of the registered geographical name, including misleading evocation, could potentially be challenged.
  Nevertheless, the new regime does not convert all forms of cultural appropriation into legal infringements. The protection primarily concerns the registered name and its commercial use, not the mere replication of stylistic elements detached from that name. In this sense, the Regulation mitigates but does not eliminate the structural tension between territorial heritage and globalised fashion markets. The Prada and Adidas controversies therefore serve both as catalysts and as cautionary examples: they demonstrate the wide normative demand for collective protection while simultaneously revealing the conceptual boundaries of the GI model when confronted with design appropriation unaccompanied by use of the geographical denomination.

8. Murano glass and the operation of Regulation (EU) 2023/2411
  Murano glass represents one of the most emblematic European craft traditions potentially eligible for protection under Regulation (EU) 2023/2411 on geographical indications for craft and industrial products. The historical concentration of glass production on the island of Murano, the transmission of specialised techniques such as cristallo and murrine, and the international reputation of the name “Murano” collectively suggest the existence of a strong territorial link grounded in human know-how rather than in natural factors.
  The Regulation expressly accommodates this type of product. Recital 7 emphasises that craft and industrial goods are often rooted in local know-how and cultural heritage, while Recital 8 clarifies that the requirements of the Regulation reinforce the understanding that a substantial proportion of the product’s value must be created within the defined geographical area⁵⁶. The core legal test is set out in Article 6, which requires that the product originate in a specific place, that a given quality, reputation or other characteristic is essentially attributable to that origin, and that at least one production step occurs in the defined area.
  For Murano glass, the decisive element would be reputation and human expertise. Unlike agricultural PDOs, whose characteristics may derive from natural conditions, craft GIs can rest predominantly on the collective skills embedded in a locality. Recital 16 confirms that the quality, reputation or other characteristic must be essentially attributable to geographical origin, reflecting a model comparable to the PGI structure in the agrifood sector under Regulation (EU) 2024/1143. In this sense, Murano glass exemplifies the human centred conception of geographical linkage that supports the new regime.
  The territorial requirement is further introduced by Recital 17, which prevents products primarily manufactured outside the area and only minimally processed within it from qualifying for protection. Applied to Murano, this provision ensures that the essential stages conferring the product’s distinctive character – particularly glassblowing and shaping – must genuinely take place in the lagoon area. The drafting of the product specification will therefore be central in demonstrating that the geographical origin remains an essential factor in the product’s identity.
  In this context, a transition from the existing “Vetro Artistico Murano” collective mark⁵⁷ towards a registered EU craft GI would align Murano with the new model. Once registered, the name would benefit from protection against misuse, imitation and evocation. This would strengthen the position of Murano producers against commercial practices exploiting the reputation of the name, including references such as “Murano style” glass that take unfair advantage. At the same time, the protection remains centred on the registered denomination and does not automatically extend to purely stylistic imitation detached from use or evocation of the geographical name.
  Murano glass operates as an illustrative test case for Regulation (EU) 2023/2411. Its potential registration would demonstrate that the Union’s geographical indication policy has evolved beyond its agricultural origins and now embraces craft products whose value is generated primarily by territorially embedded human expertise. In doing so, the Regulation consolidates a broader, culturally grounded conception of geographical indication within EU intellectual property law.

9. Conclusion
  Regulation (EU) 2023/2411 represents a significant step in EU origin law by creating a Union wide registration system for geographical indications covering craft and industrial products. It fills a gap in the internal market and confirms that geographical indications are no longer limited to the agrifood sector. At the same time, the Regulation remains rooted in the established EU GI model. Collective entitlement, product specification and protection against misuse and evocation follow the structure long used in agrifood law.
  The main change is conceptual. While the agrifood regime, especially for protected designations of origin, is strongly linked to natural conditions, the craft and industrial regime relies mainly on reputation and local know how. Protection requires that a quality, reputation or other characteristic is essentially attributable to geographical origin and that at least one stage of production takes place in the area. The link to place is therefore centred more on human skill and tradition, than on environmental factors.
  Whether this shift will succeed depends on implementation. The strength of the system will depend on how strictly product specifications will be drafted, examined and enforced.
  The case studies in Chapter 7 show both the potential and the limits of the new regime. Regulation (EU) 2023/2411 can address misuse of geographical names and evocation, but it does not grant a general right over style. Imitation that avoids use or evocation of a protected name may remain lawful.
  Murano glass illustrates the importance of careful application. If a product with a strong reputation and concentrated local know how cannot be protected under Article 6, the regime risks being seen as a branding tool rather than a genuine origin right. If protection succeeds, it will demonstrate that GI law can extend beyond food while preserving a real and verifiable link to place.
  Ultimately, Regulation (EU) 2023/2411 does not abandon the identity of EU geographical indications. It broadens their role as a tool for protecting collective reputation connected to place. Its credibility will depend on maintaining strict standards of proof and effective control, so that place remains a meaningful legal requirement rather than a symbolic label.

Bibliography
Treaties and International Agreements
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (adopted 15 April 1994) 1869 UNTS 299 (TRIPS).
Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union [2016] OJ C 202/47.
Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of Appellations of Origin and their International Registration (adopted 31 October 1958).
Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (adopted 20 March 1883, as revised at Stockholm 14 July 1967).

European Union Legislation
Council Regulation (EEC) 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs [1992] OJ L 208/1.
Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs [2002] OJ L 3/1.
Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trademarks [2015] OJ L 336/1.
Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs [2012] OJ L 343/1.
Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products [2013] OJ L 347/671.
Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trademark [2017] OJ L 154/1.
Regulation (EU) 2019/787 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the definition, description, presentation and labelling of spirit drinks [2019] OJ L 130/1.
Regulation (EU) 2023/2411 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 October 2023 on the protection of geographical indications for craft and industrial products [2023] OJ L 2411/1.
Regulation (EU) 2024/1143 of the European Parliament and of the Council on geographical indications for wine, spirit drinks and agricultural products [2024] OJ L 1143/1.

National Legislation
Legge Regione Veneto n 70/1994.

Court Cases
Case C-132/05 Commission v Germany EU:C:2008:117.
Case C-446/07 Severi EU:C:2009:530.
Case C-44/17 Scotch Whisky Association v Klotz EU:C:2018:415.
Case C-683/17 Cofemel – Sociedade de Vestuário SA v G-Star Raw CV EU:C:2019:721.
Case C-783/19 Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne v Aldi Süd EU:C:2021:713.

Secondary Sources
Barham E, ‘Translating Terroir: The Global Challenge of French AOC Labeling’ (2003) 19 Journal of Rural Studies 127.
European Commission, Study on the economic value of EU quality schemes, geographical indications and traditional specialities guaranteed (Publications Office 2020).
EUIPO, Study on EU Member States’ Potential for Protecting Craft and Industrial Geographical Indications (December 2024).
Gangjee D, Relocating the Law of Geographical Indications (Cambridge University Press 2012).
Van Caenegem W., ‘Registered Geographical Indications: Between Intellectual Property and Rural Policy’ (2003) 6 Journal of World Intellectual Property 699.

Press and Policy Statements
Paton E, ‘Prada Acknowledges Indian Inspiration for Sandals After Backlash’ The New York Times (20 June 2019).
Rao S, ‘Prada sandal row highlights India’s struggle to protect heritage’ Reuters (20 June 2019).
Reuters, ‘Adidas pulls shoe after Mexico complains of cultural appropriation’ (2022).
Reuters, ‘Mexico criticises Adidas shoe inspired by indigenous design’ (2022).
Secretaría de Cultura (Mexico), ‘Posicionamiento sobre apropiación cultural en diseños textiles de Oaxaca’ (Press Release, 2022).